Is It ‘Friend of Bruce’ or ‘Friend of Bruce’s’?

Let’s say your friend Bruce has a friend of his own. When talking about his other friend, you may be torn between saying “a friend of Bruce” or “a friend of Bruce’s.” The latter is an example of a double possessive — a grammatical construct that uses both “of” and “’s” to convey a sense of personal possession. Some double possessives are unnecessary, while others help draw a clear line between association and ownership.

In the case of Bruce and his friend, you could just say “Bruce’s friend” and be done with it. There are many instances where a singular possessive does the job and a double possessive muddies those grammatical waters. That said, both “a friend of Bruce” and “a friend of Bruce’s” are acceptable. However, there are potential snags to consider.

In this scenario, the construction “X of X” makes both grammatical and semantic sense. However, it can lead to confusion in other scenarios. For instance, maybe your friend Jo painted a picture. The problem here is that saying “painting of Jo” could mean a number of things — it could describe a painting that depicts Jo as the subject, or a painting made by Jo. For this reason, it’s essential to consider the context. If there are several potential meanings, then it’s smart to avoid the “X of X” construction for the sake of clarity.

As for the double possessive (“friend of Bruce’s”), some argue that it’s unnecessary, and in many cases it is. But let’s look at when a double possessive is appropriate. It has to do with the genitive case — a grammatical case that conveys feelings of ownership or association. Double possessives can be helpful for differentiating between a situation where a subject owns something and one where they are only associated with it.

Let’s go back to the scenario with Jo and her painting. If you said “this painting of Jo,” it sounds like someone painted Jo. But saying “this painting of Jo’s” helps clarify that Jo created or owns said painting. It’s entirely possible that she’s also the subject, though that’s a point you can clarify in another sentence. Alternatively, you could say “Jo’s painting,” but that might imply that it’s simply a possession, not a painting explicitly painted by Jo. 

Finally, it’s important to note that double possessives work only if humans or animals are the subject that’s possessing something. If a sports team wins a championship, it makes sense to say “the championship’s winner” or “winner of the championship” — but “winner of the championship’s” doesn’t work grammatically.